Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 4/4/2006 10:57:10 PM EDT
www.wnpj.org/

Reading this site, it's like a Wisconsin Clearinghouse for every moonbat liberal position ever.

Link Posted: 4/5/2006 2:59:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/9/2006 11:29:16 PM EDT by Throttle-Junkie]
.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 5:00:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2006 5:04:53 AM EDT by TheKill]
Taking a deep breath.....let it out.......ok........very nice.....

First of all, you are mistaking their agenda. Their agenda is NOT "war is bad, peace is good". It is much deeper than that.

Second, did you even look at the various issues they are promoting?? They are literally Anti-everything.

They do not recognize, in fact, they REFUSE, even when confronted by irrefutable facts, to admit, that there are bad people out there. If we did it there way, we would get steamrolled by every nation and organization that hates us and means us harm. It is this same ethos that promotes "submission" to those who would do you and I harm, be it an enemy combatant or an armed robber, or a rapist, or a serial killer. THIS is what they are promoting.

So, at the bottom of the pile, they are dead wrong in their most basic premise.

Furthermore, they are sending a message to the enemy about our political will. This emboldens the enemy and weakens our position with those whom we are engaged with in battle. ESPECIALLY the referendums. Emboldening the enemy in a war of wills such as we are currently engaged in, WILL result in MORE dead and wounded US servicemen and women. How is that "Supporting the troops?" That whole line they spout is BULLSHIT.

You don't see anything wrong with that eh?

Finally, it is extremely disheartening to our own military personnel who are slogging it out in the combat zone. That is unforgivable.

The only people that wish bloodshed on anyone are lunatics. But the realist realizes that there are times when war is just, just like there are times when killing your neighbor is just (like when he goes on a coke binge and tries to kill you or someone you love).

The crowning chunk of feces on this whole thing, is the whole "democracy" thing. The more they push that agenda, the more it contaminates our society and muddies the waters of citizenship. We are a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY! They are massively promoting a total falsehood, and making an impact doing it. Again, the referendums are part of this. They are stupid and irresponsible.

The entire thing is a steaming pile of feces.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 5:26:11 AM EDT
Just had to add......if you look at their "alerts" page, you will see they are pro-illegal immigrant, anti-war, anti-responsibility, anti-new energy capacity, anti-business, pro abortion, pro-drug, etc, etc.

"Democracy"...looks like their code word for "mobocracy on social issues, hand over all other power to the government". IOW, these are the same old hippy fucksticks from the 60's, only now they have money, lawyer friends, and a whole new generation of idiot college kids to follow them along with ignorant soccer moms and a shitload of idiot transplants from Shitcago.

Duh....
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 7:10:25 AM EDT
I'm with you, they're not a good organization, and stand for everything I do not, but I wouldn't mind the troops coming back.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 8:24:39 PM EDT
One look at those pics and I will bet you most of them are on some kind of psych meds.

Anyhow, they do have the Right to dissent and speak out but they also do lend aid and comfort to our enemies. They do embolden them, leading them to rightly believe that we lack the will and the stomach to do what needs to be. They would be correct in that assumption. I remember telling some of the liberal docs I worked with one day, when we got on the subject, that "the Viet Nam War wasn't lost in VN, it was lost right fucking here" (tapping with my finger on their GD desks). Heheheh. You should have seen the looks on their faces. Good guys but damn.

The retards who protested the VN War still think they did a good thing without understanding that there might have been a better way. But hey, they were all cowards and want to believe they were the courageous ones for daring to besmirch our guys in the fight and daring to risk inconsequential arrest for lending aid and comfort to our nation's enemy . And for spitting on them also, I suppose. I will guarantee you that all of those who did only did so when in the midst of a likeminded crowd. Yup cowards every fucking one. Same as these losers.

Must be hell to look in the mirror every morning and know you are a pussy. Thank God I will never have to feel that.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 11:08:20 PM EDT
They have got to be delusional to think that there's going to be any kind of peace if our troops were to come home right now. Idiots, all of them.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 2:09:29 AM EDT
Just saw this shit in the Stars and Stripes. Gee golly, let's all come home now and restore chaos and corruption to the Iraqi people. I don't think that 3K dead and 15K wounded servicemen would appreciate accomplishing nothing.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 2:14:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MisterPX:
Just saw this shit in the Stars and Stripes. Gee golly, let's all come home now and restore chaos and corruption to the Iraqi people. I don't think that 3K dead and 15K wounded servicemen would appreciate accomplishing nothing.




THANK YOU!!!!

And THANK YOU again!!!

WY6.......
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 6:03:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/6/2006 6:13:16 AM EDT by FMD]

Originally Posted By MisterPX:
Just saw this shit in the Stars and Stripes. Gee golly, let's all come home now and restore chaos and corruption to the Iraqi people. I don't think that 3K dead and 15K wounded servicemen would appreciate accomplishing nothing.



+1 on the thanks as above. I owe you more than beer, dinner, or ammo when you come back. Hopefully that will be before too long...

<Dons flamesuit>

All,

I don't like these peacenik asshats any better than the rest of you, however; TJ has a point. I'll go one step further and say that I agree with the folks wanting to bring our troops home for my own reasons:

1) The Iraqi people are from a totally different culture. Muslims in the Middle East wouldn't know freedom if it beheaded them (bad analogy intended). Take their new "Constitution". It isn't based on the good 'ol USC. It's a soviet-style document where rights are granted by the Government, rather than recognized as inherent and protected from the Government as ours is. THAT is the "freedom" we are winning for the Iraqi people.


"It may be the ultimate irony that the United States, which, among other reasons, invaded Iraq to help bring liberal democracy to the Middle East, will play a decisive role in establishing its second Shiite Islamic state."

- former Ambassador Peter W. Galbraith*



2) From a practical viewpoint, I understand the idea of fighting terrorists on foreign soil...that is a good thing. Unfortunately, and in principal, forcing that to happen on someone else's sovereign soil while claiming to "enforce UN sanctions/resolutions" is a really, really, really, bad idea. Our system was set up to avoid these situations. Congress must raise an Army and declare war, to be executed by the Pres. Somehow we've gotten that backwards over the last 150 or so years. If we actually declared war, I'd have a much different view.

3) Prosecuting the GWOT™ would be something I can wholeheartedly support if we were doing so using SOF/CIA assassinations, precision air attacks, and limited nuclear strikes (yes, I'm serious about that last one). Spending billions of dollars and thousands of lives to build infrastructure and "win the hearts and minds" of a populace that will willingly give up their freedom (paid for with my tax dollars and American [potentially my friend’s] lives), to the next petty tyrant in a mullahs' robe claiming inspiration from Mohammed is not.

We're there. There's nothing to do now but beat the living hell out of AQ and any AQ sympathizers out there in that area (Taliban, OBL in Afghanistan, etc.). The problem I see is that the social projects and "regime change" are losing propositions. “Embolden the opposition”? They’re already partisans taking on the combined firepower of the United States military in the hope of martyrdom. They can’t be any more bold than they already are. At the same time, if the area will revert to pre-Saddam, pre-Taliban religious fascism the way I believe they will (being a student of history)...then how much more appreciation will a couple more “thousands dead and wounded servicemen and women” have for "accomplishing nothing”? Don't answer, it's a rhetorical question.

To conclude:

Kick ass, take names, hoist the black flag, slit some throats...and come back safely and soon, brother.



*ETA: I know Galbraith is a liberal nutjob. I just happen to think he's spot on with his assesment.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 6:21:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FMD:


1) The Iraqi people are from a totally different culture. Muslims in the Middle East wouldn't know freedom if it beheaded them (bad analogy intended). Take their new "Constitution". It isn't based on the good 'ol USC. It's a soviet-style document where rights are granted by the Government, rather than recognized as inherent and protected from the Government as ours is. THAT is the "freedom" we are winning for the Iraqi people.



What do you think our Constitution would read like if our current gov't wrote it?




2) From a practical viewpoint, I understand the idea of fighting terrorists on foreign soil...that is a good thing. Unfortunately, and in principal, forcing that to happen on someone else's sovereign soil while claiming to "enforce UN sanctions/resolutions" is a really, really, really, bad idea. Our system was set up to avoid these situations. Congress must raise an Army and declare war, to be executed by the Pres. Somehow we've gotten that backwards over the last 150 or so years. If we actually declared war, I'd have a much different view.


We may never see that again.
I don't really have a huge problem with us killing them here FWIW and I expect that is just a matter of political correctness, more than anything. We don't even seem to have the balls to prevent their access to our country. That is truly pathetic.


3) Prosecuting the GWOT™ would be something I can wholeheartedly support if we were doing so using SOF/CIA assassinations, precision air attacks, and limited nuclear strikes (yes, I'm serious about that last one). Spending billions of dollars and thousands of lives to build infrastructure and "win the hearts and minds" of a populace that will willingly give up their freedom (paid for with my tax dollars and American [potentially my friend’s] lives), to the next petty tyrant in a mullahs' robe claiming inspiration from Mohammed is not.


I agree with your strategic assessment but I really do believe people everywhere yearn for freedom. Oftentimes, they just don't yearn for it for others.


Link Posted: 4/6/2006 6:43:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/6/2006 6:46:22 AM EDT by FMD]

Originally Posted By drjarhead:
What do you think our Constitution would read like if our current gov't wrote it?



I thank God that they didn't!



If we actually declared war, I'd have a much different view.


We may never see that again.



Ron Paul was one the lone dissenting voice that advocated an actual Declaration of War on Iraq before we went in. My kind of guy.


I don't really have a huge problem with us killing them here FWIW and I expect that is just a matter of political correctness, more than anything. We don't even seem to have the balls to prevent their access to our country. That is truly pathetic.


Agreed. I also find it pathetic that we spend much more on protecting the borders of Iraq with Syria and Iran, than we do our own borders with Mexico and Canada.


I agree with your strategic assessment but I really do believe people everywhere yearn for freedom. Oftentimes, they just don't yearn for it for others.


Here's where I would disagree. Islam, at its heart, has always been a political movement to subjugate the peoples of the Middle-East under the auspices of a supra-state, rather than a religious movement. The desire to be politically free is a Western construct of philosophy that arose out of the Christian Reformation followed through to the Enlightenment (the early examples of Rome and Greece notwithstanding).

Short of following Ann Coulter's advice (bomb them into the stone-age and convert them to Christianity), the people of the ME will never "yearn for freedom" as we do.

ETA: To clarify my position; Moonbat Hippies bad, bringing the troops home (getting the "job" done) as quickly as possible good.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 7:52:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/9/2006 11:30:01 PM EDT by Throttle-Junkie]
.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 8:19:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/6/2006 8:22:12 AM EDT by FMD]

Originally Posted By Throttle-Junkie:
We have goals that cannot coexist.



Which was my point...in both of my previous posts


Ever have that funny feeling that you aren't making any friends?


I'll stand next to you and your soccer mom freinds while we hold hands and sing "Give Peace a Chance"...


...you pussy.


Seriously now, can we get back to bashing the pachouli-smelling hippies?

ETA: I actually like the smell of pachouli, just not self-righteous indignation and niavete' that goes along with it.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 2:25:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/6/2006 2:28:24 PM EDT by TheKill]
Bringing home the troops is not a bad idea. Obviously! The safest place for troops is here at home! The problem is, these groups are nothing but stinking hippies, who are co-opting that sentiment into broad based support for their whole agenda left wing liberal agenda, 99% of which has nothing to do with doing anything for the troops at all.

Kris, you are correct, but in the larger picture, we CAN'T bring them home now. The real issue is, we shouldn't have gone in in the first place. But now that we are there, we MUST finish the job, kick their ass, and leave as victors, or we are FUCKED.

IRAN is where we should have invaded if we wanted a base of operations in the ME to prosecute the GWOT.

Whatever, it's pretty much irrelevant anyway. We are there, and we must stay and finish the job or the consequences will be huge. And with Iran being such assholes, we DO need Iraq as a base of operations in order to effectively project power in that AO. Again, there are a lot of reasons why bringing them home now is BAD policy.

Perhaps my ranting got in the way of communicating effectively.

Oh yeah....just thought of something else. Once the troops ARE home, then what? You've got a large, well funded, and effective umbrella organization of left wing stinking hippies, with broad support from soccer moms and college students all over the state, that needs to move on to another cause. Which one will they take up next?

I'm not saying they don't have the right to express their views. What I am saying is, we need to be organized and effectively counter those views. Because the left wing in WI has put themselves in a position, through this umbrella organization and it's satellites, to steamroll the right, and the right has done nothing to counter it.

I am betting this is a Soros funded organization. We need to do something similiar or the hunters and shooters will be truly screwed by these idiots in 5-10 years.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 2:54:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/6/2006 3:00:29 PM EDT by FMD]

Originally Posted By TheKill:
Oh yeah....just thought of something else. Once the troops ARE home, then what? You've got a large, well funded, and effective umbrella organization of left wing stinking hippies, with broad support from soccer moms and college students all over the state, that needs to move on to another cause. Which one will they take up next?



Ann Coulter's advice works for this situation as well:

"Bomb them back to the stone-age and convert them to Chistianity".


Edit: I think I'm going to to make my own yard sign:

"Bring the troops home. Nuke Iraq & Iran.*"

*(from orbit: It's the only way to be sure).
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 4:36:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheKill:


Oh yeah....just thought of something else. Once the troops ARE home, then what? You've got a large, well funded, and effective umbrella organization of left wing stinking hippies, with broad support from soccer moms and college students all over the state, that needs to move on to another cause. Which one will they take up next?



Coming to an advisory referendum near you: "Should the state of Wisconsin ban all handguns, assault type rifles and large capacity magazines?"
Add to that the fact that these activist groups have a bully pulpit in some of the largest state newspapers, and they become the conscience of the electorate.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 8:08:42 AM EDT
Ron Paul
Good point. This man should be our next president.

If there was a Draft do you think we would be in Iraq? Lets institute the draft and lets see how much apathy is around.
Fuck Iraq. If Iraq or Iran ever becomes a threat nuclear annihilation would be the word of the day. Its tiem for Israel to cover our back. We been standing by them for many years, and have gotten a lot of crap for it. Let them be our middle east outpost.
Iraq was never a threat to us. Ever.
Bring the troops home now. Thats the best way to support them. The argument that if we do that they have died for nothing wont change whether we win or lose. The fact is we sent thiem in on false pretenses. They have died for nothing, and the longer they stay the more of them will die for nothing

I have a 6 year old daughter. everytime I look at this picture I wonder what it is like for this little girl.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 9:17:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mytwocents:
I have a 6 year old daughter. everytime I look at this picture I wonder what it is like for this little girl.
img326.imageshack.us/img326/9418/iraqigirl9qd.jpg



Hard photo to look at. Also hard to tell the context. Any help on that, .02?
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 9:47:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/7/2006 9:53:43 AM EDT by mytwocents]
It was an accident
The girls family was going to a party of some kind. And got shot up at a check point. The blood on her is her mother and fathers.

I want to repeat it was an Accident

From close up I can see through the bullet-mottled windscreen that the driver has been hit in the head many times. A woman, still covered by her veil, also lies dead in the front of the car"
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 1:46:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/9/2006 11:30:41 PM EDT by Throttle-Junkie]
.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 1:54:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/7/2006 4:46:48 PM EDT by mytwocents]

I'm assuming that the driver disobeyed the checkpoint procedure and we shot him for it.
On any other day, the same ROE may have stopped a car bomber from killing US personnel.
It's a war, and they always create innocent collateral damage.



That is exactly what happened. If we had not been there though this would not of happened. We had no reason to go there. None. Unfotunatly the whack Jobs on the Left have picked this cause, but usually not for the right reasons. Sometimes I think Its a conspiracy. Want to discredit a position, Have some whack jobs advocate it.

Its sort of like the immigration issue. Its not a question of race. However If we had some Neo Nazis Marching in support of deportation, what would that do to the message. My point is there is crying on both sides and it needs to stop. We need to get the hell out as quick as possible. Let the UN take over. Something Just get our men and women out


Being the demographic that likes AWs, C3s, CCW, training, gear, and reads for pleasure ... I'd say that we are probably representative of the ultra right wing in Wisconsin


How does this make you Ultra Right wing? Seriously Labels really need to go. right wing left wing democrat, republican conservative liberal.
These labels do nothing but divide us. And its the fall back argument for the mentally challenged ideoalgues of both the left and the right. Ive been called a libtard cause i dare question Bushes' credibility. It was labels that got us into this war to begin with. Very Few opposed the war becuase the admin was ready to paint them as either spineless soft on terrorism or worse traitors. Then when it came time for election the admin used their spineless votes against them. Politically it was the work of true genius.
Good politics doesnt mean good for our country. Elections arent football games. The worth of the nation is not Built around which political party wins, its builds its stregth on which people represent the best interests of the american people. I think people have lost sight of that. Its sad really really sad
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 4:42:27 PM EDT
If they would have followed directions, read the signs, etc. ;ole the majority of the populous, they wouldn't have gotten themselves shot. If I'm in a dark alley with a cop, and I reach behind mysel depsite the officers orders to keep my hands in view, and pull something out of my pocket and point it at the officer, is it his fault for shooting me?

I will say that you're right that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq in '03. We should have finished the job 15 years ago. Anyhow, we have to do it now. That's what uncle sugar does, he makes the world a better place, and if you don't think Iraq has become a better place, maybe you should turn off the news, and talk to more OIF vets.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 4:49:47 PM EDT

I will say that you're right that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq in '03. We should have finished the job 15 years ago. Anyhow, we have to do it now. That's what uncle sugar does, he makes the world a better place, and if you don't think Iraq has become a better place, maybe you should turn off the news, and talk to more OIF vets.


YOu would have to talk to every one in the admin involved in gulf war 1. We left it the way it was because it was the best solution. That was according to Bush senior scowcroft powell and others.
The sanctions were working, Iran was neutralised Iraq wasnt a threat to anyone. We actually could of rehabilitated Saddam Like we did Qhadafi.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:37:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mytwocents:


That is exactly what happened. If we had not been there though this would not of happened. We had no reason to go there. None.



And Iraqis would still be imprisoned, raped and murdered without cause. We've given them a chance at liberty. Our job isn't done yet unfortunately. Leaving now would result in civil war.


How does this make you Ultra Right wing? Seriously Labels really need to go. right wing left wing democrat, republican conservative liberal.
These labels do nothing but divide us. And its the fall back argument for the mentally challenged ideoalgues of both the left and the right.



Rubbish. Labels are just words to describe others and there are thousands. You would just push political correctness to the extreme and who does that aid?


Ive been called a libtard cause i dare question Bushes' credibility.


No, you were called a libtard for talking out your ass.
Using the ACLU and other blatantly one sided socialist organizations for your information and then even posting links to their sites.
Dammmnnnn....LMFAO.

And yes, I said SOCIALIST!!!!


It was labels that got us into this war to begin with. Very Few opposed the war becuase the admin was ready to paint them as either spineless soft on terrorism or worse traitors. Then when it came time for election the admin used their spineless votes against them. Politically it was the work of true genius.
Good politics doesnt mean good for our country. Elections arent football games. The worth of the nation is not Built around which political party wins, its builds its stregth on which people represent the best interests of the american people. I think people have lost sight of that. Its sad really really sad



It sure as hell does matter who runs the country, it matters one helluva lot.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:41:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mytwocents:

I will say that you're right that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq in '03. We should have finished the job 15 years ago. Anyhow, we have to do it now. That's what uncle sugar does, he makes the world a better place, and if you don't think Iraq has become a better place, maybe you should turn off the news, and talk to more OIF vets.


YOu would have to talk to every one in the admin involved in gulf war 1. We left it the way it was because it was the best solution. That was according to Bush senior scowcroft powell and others.
The sanctions were working, Iran was neutralised Iraq wasnt a threat to anyone. We actually could of rehabilitated Saddam Like we did Qhadafi.



Powell wanted to go all the way to Bagdad and finish it.

Iraq and Hussein were chosen for conquest some time ago. There are good reasons for both. Policies are not just made and enacted under one President. They are meant to be carried thru by others. Clinton dropped the ball on that one. GWB picked it back up and 9/11 gave the country the reason to exert its influence in the ME, a region vital to our, and the world's national security.

I don't like it either, but that's the way it is.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:53:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/9/2006 11:31:23 PM EDT by Throttle-Junkie]
.
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 5:46:54 AM EDT
+1

I dont see how it would get non freindly. No one has called me libtard, or a DU troll here. If you want to see a destructive use of labels you can go here

The classic AR15 pile on

Actually I dont see anything else to debate. Throttle Junkie pretty much summed everything up. Just imagine what Bush Could of accomplished for us without Iraq. I really do wonder if some of these neo-Hippies are funded by the neo-cons.

People like Cindy Sheehan wreck the anti war movement, or any sensible discussion about why we are there. The mantra "we are fighting them there so we dont have to fight them here" is pure bullshit. Wait till the Admin says we are hiring them here so we dont have to hire them there for the illegals
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 10:12:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/8/2006 10:14:23 AM EDT by TheKill]

Originally Posted By mytwocents:
+1

I dont see how it would get non freindly. No one has called me libtard, or a DU troll here. If you want to see a destructive use of labels you can go here

The classic AR15 pile on

Actually I dont see anything else to debate. Throttle Junkie pretty much summed everything up. Just imagine what Bush Could of accomplished for us without Iraq. I really do wonder if some of these neo-Hippies are funded by the neo-cons.

People like Cindy Sheehan wreck the anti war movement, or any sensible discussion about why we are there. The mantra "we are fighting them there so we dont have to fight them here" is pure bullshit. Wait till the Admin says we are hiring them here so we dont have to hire them there for the illegals



I have to disagree.

While we may not have had it in mind when we went in, we ARE killing a hell of a lot of foreign Islamofacists in Iraq. They are coming from Syria, Iran, Uzbekistan, Chechnya, Russia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Turkey, Sudan.....all over the world. And it's working, so far. If it bought 10 or 20 or 100 innocent American civilian lives over the last three years.....it was worth it. War means killing. We are in an low intensity worldwide conflict with this people. Therefore, killing them = good.

And now that we are there, we MUST finish the job, or we lose major, major face in that area of the world. AND, now we have Iran to deal with. Iran is going to get real, real messy.

Will, if that one blows up you are going to be in the thick of it my friend.

Everyone wants to be "anti-Bush". I'm no Bush fan, at least not anymore. He is simply way too easy on the big corporations, and the illegals. I supported him simply because he won't come after our guns like Kerry would have, and he is against most things that the moonbats are promoting. Now hear this: any Democrat who is elected president becomes a mouthpiece and promoter for all the radical left moonbats that we can't stand, and legitimizes them on the national level. Anyway, Bush is a poor speaker and communicator, which really makes it hard to be "Presidential". He is definitely beholden to a lot of corporate interests and plays the money/power game just like all Presidents in my lifetime have (including and especially the Clintons.....but we never heard about it because the American public isn't buying missile parts and nuclear warhead schematics, we buy gasoline). Bush is a NWO-er just like Clinton was. Who signed NAFTA? Clinton. Who gave the Chinese the trading status that they currently use to completely rule our household goods markets and modernize their army? Clinton.

They ALL suck. But when you are talking about protecting America and American interests, you have to have a long view. Liberals, Democrats, moonbats, and simple pussies don't have the stomach for the "long view". If it feels bad, you must not do it. Smoking pot feels good. Seeing an American serviceman KIA does not. Life is not that simple, especially in the big picture. Any Democrat president we ever had in my lifetime suffered from this "feel good" outlook and fucked us all hard in the ass on the international front. Clinton gave the Chinese nuke and missile technology, they are now helping the Iranians! Peanuthead Carter turned his back on the Shah of Iran, who as overthrown by the Mullahs, and THAT plunged Iran into the darks ages of radical religious theocracy and the international sponsorship of radical Islamic terror that we see today! The Shah was the last and best hope Iran ever had for a modern and democratic society. Does anyone stop to think that this thing with Iran has been brewing for a long, long time? And that we didn't have a real effective way to project power in that AO until we set up in Iraq? Bringing democracy to Iraq may or may work, but IMO it's a combination of finally making Saddam pay for thumbing his nose at the UN, and "maskerova" for the REAL objective, which hopefully is to give Iran a real hard kick in the balls and get them back for the hostage BS that happened under Carter's watch.

The world situation goes way beyond what the mainstream media is putting out there! Don't be a moonbat and throw support behind one side of an issue without researching the facts and the long term history behind it.

I'm done with this discussion. Either you get it, or you don't. There is a saying: to be a good leader, you must first be a good follower. I'm not saying "drink the kool aid". I'm saying, if you have never been a leader, be a follower first. Our leadership has a hell of a lot more intel then we do. I trust any Republican to at least allow the military and intelligence agencies to do their jobs effectively, which is to protect us and deal with world threats. Not so with ANY democrat.
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 11:11:41 AM EDT
What do you mean you are "done with this discussion"? You started the damn thread, you're stuck with it.
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 3:26:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By drjarhead:
What do you mean you are "done with this discussion"? You started the damn thread, you're stuck with it.



OK....open for business...again!!
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 9:39:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/9/2006 11:31:52 PM EDT by Throttle-Junkie]
.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 2:12:33 AM EDT
Sanctions were working?

Anyhow, it's too late to back out now, no matter the reason. We already backed out of a fight ten years ago, and that told the world that if you give the Americans a bloody nose, they'll run away with their tail between their legs. As far as Iran, I feel that it's in keeping the small players small, otherwise the turn into big players which become harder to contain.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 5:19:13 AM EDT

Iran has roads, power plants, cars, shops, cities, sidewalks, traffic signals, subways, and people in western attire heading to jobs and talking on cell phones.
They also have elections.
If you didn't know you were looking at pictures of Iran, it could be mistaken for any modern metropolis in the world.



Iran is a theocracy.
Iran has sharia police just like the taliban
Iran still practices public stonings
Video of stonings warning graphic
Irans nuclear ambitions were always a ruse to get there foot in the door
Iran dosnt have the modern armaments you would expect. They used up there U.S. stuff in the Iran /Iraq conflict. The Russia/chinese stuff was/is too expensive for them
Read FAS report 1996 (also could be title Iran Wants a Bomb


Sanctions were working?

Anyhow, it's too late to back out now, no matter the reason. We already backed out of a fight ten years ago, and that told the world that if you give the Americans a bloody nose, they'll run away with their tail between their legs. As far as Iran, I feel that it's in keeping the small players small, otherwise the turn into big players which become harder to contain.



Absolutley sanctions were working.
OK you Need a video of Powell saying sanctions are working in may of 2001?

We didnt not complete the job in the first job. It was intentional we stopped when we did. Saddam was the only option for stability without turning Iraq of to Iran. Anyone here remember when George Bush Asked the Iraqis to stand up and rebel?

The Shiites in the south did just that. We pledged our support. When the Shiites stood up, The started plastering posters of ayatolloh Khomeini. GB saw what was next and we let Saddam wipe them out

Iraq was never a problem, to us. Not even in the first war. When he invaded Kuwait he did so with our permission and then we betrayed him. Dont get me wrong Saddam is not my buddy. He is an evil dictator. But Sometimes even evil Dictators aliied with us are better than the alternatives.

We should of just invaded Afghanistan. and finished the job there. Now we have troops on both sides of Iran. We deal with Iran and they can over run Iraq and pretty much wipe us out. Dont think so?
Think Chicomm in korea coming over the northern mountains.

My theory of order of battle
Israel Launches osirek like attack on Iranian nuke facilities.
Iran declares war on Israel
Palestinians start rioting
Iran masses troops on border with Iraq
War
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 7:31:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/9/2006 11:32:24 PM EDT by Throttle-Junkie]
.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 7:49:32 AM EDT

The link is from nearly a decade ago and the quotes are that of a different administration that has been deposed .... by the Iranian people .... via the ballot box.The linked web page says that the stonings were metered out by a court.


They are still stoning people, cutting off there hands and torturing dissadents (sp) hanging gays etc etc

Where did you ever get the Idea that Irans' ruling party is elected?

The supreme leader is Iran's top decision-maker, and has final say in all matters of state. According to Iran's constitution, the supreme leader is responsible for supervising the "general policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran" and directs all the country's foreign and domestic policy. The supreme leader also controls the military and Iran's intelligence operations. He alone has the power to declare war. He also appoints leaders of the judiciary, the state media, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and six of the 12 members of the Council of Guardians, a powerful oversight committee.

The supreme leader is represented throughout the government through representatives that serve as field liaisons. These representatives have the authority to intervene in any matter on the supreme leader's behalf.

Only two men have held the position of Iran's supreme leader: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the father of the Iranian Revolution.

Link Posted: 4/9/2006 9:16:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/9/2006 11:32:52 PM EDT by Throttle-Junkie]
.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 9:35:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/9/2006 11:35:38 PM EDT by Throttle-Junkie]
.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 10:07:48 AM EDT

How many GIs do you think should die over this?
How many of your neighbor's college-aged children should go to their deaths in order to bring 'justice' to Iranian dissidents?
I condemn the Iranian's actions in these matters; they're disgusting, but it's nothing to wage war over.



Absolutley none should die, I felt the Same about Iraq
Thats why we have ballistic missles, the CIA and Israel
The reason for the first gulf war was bogus as is this one. Im just pointing out Iran is a dictatorship. After you said it was a democracy. One of my best freinds in high school was Iranian (he called himself persian) I went to a military academy. His father was the first one assasinated in the revolution. After that I understood why his father sent him here. His father worked for the CIA as the head of the tehran airport.


The bill initially prohibited the state school board or any governing board from adopting any "textbook or instructional materials ... that reflect adversely" on any sexual behavior. But it was later specifically amended to require positive portrayals of homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals in all curricula.


As much as I dont want my daughter to grow up gay. I dont think making second class citizens out of ny americans is a good thing. I think california is trying not to become like certain kansas school boards.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 12:20:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/9/2006 11:33:18 PM EDT by Throttle-Junkie]
.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 12:23:13 PM EDT

Kindergarten stories about mid-operation trannys having gloryhole sex at highway rest stops, depicted it in a positive light?
God Bless America.



Link Please
And all programs have parental Op out.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 12:47:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/9/2006 11:33:48 PM EDT by Throttle-Junkie]
.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 1:55:11 PM EDT

You can try to obfuscate and side step the issue with allegations about second class Americans, but at the end of the day, I'll never aquiesce to adult perverts talking to grade school children about sucking cocks, butt fucking and elective genital mutilation.
They view the school as thier chance to get at children without the parents around.
Sexual predators looking for a place to happen and masqeurading under a banner of tolerance.
I'll never 'tolerate' pedophiles around children.



Hey Im a fan of keep it in the closet. But On the other hand. I dont want my child to grow up and be bigoted. When you start making one group of citizens second class the category always grows

My bad Im talking out of my ass. I apologise. I was just looking up opt out options
There is none for orientation.

From a pro gay california web site
Do parents have the right to notice about and to opt their children out of diversity education programs that include discussions of sexual orientation or other controversial topics?
No. State law explicitly provides that "instruction or materials that discuss gender, sexual orientation, or family life and do not discuss human reproductive organs and their functions" is not subject to the parental notice and opt-out laws. California Education Code § 51932(b). Where issues of sexual orientation or gender identity are raised in school programs other than HIV/AIDS prevention or sexual health education, such as programs designed to encourage respect and tolerance for diversity, parents are not entitled to have notice of or the opportunity to opt their children out of such programs. However, schools may choose to give parents information in advance to explain the purpose and content of these programs and enlist parental support and participation.


That is just plain fucking wrong
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 2:00:18 PM EDT
There is an Opt Out option But its really buried
Also opt out is protected by federal law
Again its buried no one is going to know about it.
Glad I dont live in Kalifornia
Parents who want to take proactive steps to protect family autonomy can file a general opt-out form, like PJI's "Excuse of child from objectionable education" form [PDF], AptosParent.net's "Notice of Parent's desire to participate in child's education" letter [DOC], or CRI's "Student Exemption" form [PDF].

These tools are designed to help parents inform government schools of their desire to actively participate in the formal education of their children by being notified about any discussions, questionnaires, workshops, or assemblies that the law defines as potentially controversial, including the following: Sex or family life education, AIDS or HIV education, suicide or death education, sexuality, showing of adult or pornographic films, religious or political indoctrination, behavior modification programs, values clarification, and global education dealing with any of the above.

Link Posted: 4/9/2006 5:29:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/9/2006 11:34:18 PM EDT by Throttle-Junkie]
.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 7:13:50 PM EDT

Glad we're on the same page with this one.
You had me worried about you for a second there.



Well you can go back to being worried. I agree in diversity and tolerance. I even would like that taught in the class room. What I dont agree on is the fact that as a parent you cannot Opt out and Be notified in advance. Thats just wrong. My duaghter is only 6. I will never ever lie to her. I want her to grow up with all the facts even the ones I dont like.

Homosexuals are not pedophiles. Pedophiles are pedophiles. Pedophiles that have a proclivety towards homosexual sex with children do not as a rule have sex with other men.

What I dont agree with is that as a parent. Parents do not have the option to OPT Out of what ever it is they want. I dont believe in the marriage amendment, nor do I agree with a lot of things. Although I view the gay lifestyle as not one I would wish upon my daughter. And one I would rather not see. It would be hypocritical of me to push these people into second class status.

Way I figure it if it doesnt deny the rights property or freedom of others do what you want. Same goes for property rights. Gun rights. Drinking and drug rights. You have a right to do what ever you want as long as it doesnt harm anyone else.

About 3 weeks ago My divorced cousin maria was at a wedding with her "partner". It was a big deal. i was Like so what Im not going to even acknowledge it. I could care less. Shes my cousin, shes still cool. But it doesnt add or take away anything about who she is as a person
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 9:14:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/9/2006 11:34:45 PM EDT by Throttle-Junkie]
.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 9:30:12 PM EDT

Says you.
They're trying to approach LITTLE children while they are away from their parents to talk about sex.
That SCREAMS, "I'm a predator."
If you want to take that gamble with your children, that's your decision.
Using government to force everyone else's children to be subject to the same risks, under the auspicies of education, makes one my adversary.
Do what you will with yours, and stay the fuck away from mine.



I think they are just trying to mainstream there behaviour so possible future homosexuals dont get beat up, or go thru whatever emotional trama they went thru for there Lifestyle choices.
I dont agree with the goverment shoving that education down any parents throat. Im pretty progressive I dont spank my kid. i take her on a car trip and discuss any relevant problems.
Here is a pic of one of our little chats

Link Posted: 4/9/2006 9:31:20 PM EDT
Dayum man! My eyes are burning!

This thread was about hippies...

The babykiller pics were a bit much, but close to being on topic at least...

The men in leather and 11" heels have no place here.

Let's go back to the topic: Read this as food for thought before making your next post. It seems like it's goofy fiction at first, but read (and google as the protagonist does) till the end.

This thread will be better off if you do.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 10:02:56 PM EDT

Let's go back to the topic: Read this as food for thought before making your next post. It seems like it's goofy fiction at first, but read (and google as the protagonist does) till the end.

Hey that was some nice fiction I enjoyed it. Didnt google nothing though. Not yet
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 10:51:05 PM EDT
I formally withdraw from the conversation as no good can come of my further participation.

That is all.
Top Top